CBS poll shows even split for marijuana legalization

posted at 11:21 am on November 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Has America become more libertarian on marijuana? A new poll from CBS shows that respondents split evenly on the question of legalization at 47% either way. It’s the second year in a row that a majority for prohibition has failed to materialize, and the first time that it failed to get even a plurality:

For the first time since CBS News began asking the question, as many Americans now think marijuana use should be legal as think it should not.

Support for legalizing marijuana inched up slightly from 45 percent in September to 47 percent today, according to a CBS News poll, conducted Nov. 16-19. Another 47 percent think it should remain prohibited. A year ago, a slight majority of Americans, 51 percent, opposed legalizing marijuana use.

This shift in public opinion was seen at the ballot box this month, when Colorado and Washington became the first states in the nation to approve of recreational marijuana use among adults over the age of 21. Marijuana use of any kind, however, is still illegal under federal law. It’s unclear at this point how the Obama administration intends to respond.

The poll shows a significant partisan split on the issue. Majorities of Democrats and independents favor legalization, but at 51% and 55% respectively, those majorities are not as significant as one might think. However, two-thirds of Republicans still believe it should be prohibited.

The age demos are more telling on this point. Majorities of age demos below 45 believe in legalization — although again, perhaps not as significantly as one would guess. The 18-29YO demo favors legalization by only 13 points, 54/41, while 30-44YOs favor it by almost the same amount, 53/42. The middle-aged demo, of which I’m a member, is almost evenly split at 46/48, but seniors deeply oppose legalization at 30/61.

The numbers are much different for doctor-prescribed marijuana, though:

Eighty-three percent of Americans favor allowing doctors to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients suffering from serious illnesses, the poll shows – up from 77 percent a year ago and 62 percent back in 1997. A majority of Americans of all ages – as well as most Republicans, Democrats, and independents – favor allowing this.

The CBS poll doesn’t include age demos on this question; it would be interesting to see how that splits out. Also interesting is the impression people have about doctor-prescribed marijuana. Only 29% think doctors mainly prescribe it for “serious medical illness,” while 53% believe doctors prescribe it for “other reasons.” If so, I wonder why so many back prescription pot but not full legalization. Perhaps they see it as a stimulus plan for primary-care physicians; they’ll need one under ObamaCare, to be sure.

Earlier this week, I featured Steven Crowder’s look at marijuana in our Green Room, and it got over 120 comments the last time I looked, and it’s worth another look on this post. Steven argues that there is a valid argument for getting the federal government out of marijuana prohibition, but rebuts the argument that pot is harmless or less harmful than alcohol – as well as provides an entertaining bit of vox populi from Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Update: Scott Rasmussen wrote about legalization two weeks ago, noting that support for it increases when people understand that access will come with significant regulatory oversight:

But when we ask about legalizing and regulating marijuana in a similar manner to the way alcohol and cigarettes are regulated, support for legalization increases to 56 percent. Only 36 percent remain opposed.

Most support regulations that would make it illegal for those under 18 to purchase pot, insure that those who drive under the influence would receive strict penalties and favor a ban on smoking marijuana in public places.

Fifty-eight percent support a requirement that marijuana could be purchased only in pharmacies. A plurality thinks that would cut the income of those who continue to sell drugs illegally.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I would still question how the laws came about, I think that in the fervor of making a more moral society back in the twenties and thirties, certain laws were instituted, and they were backed buy those who stood to profit, without necessarily having to get their hands dirty.

Thats probably true as it is with many things.
That some profited by it is not evidence that that aspect had any part in the making or implementation of those laws. Their profiting may have been little more than unintended consequences.

In any case I think you find the populace tweaking any substance and experimentation, that has adverse affects on the original root. I would say too that anytime the Government is involved, things are always more complicated than that:) You are right though, it should be a State’s rights issue either way, the states competing with each other for our business( basically us living there) and we can each have our own utopias so to speak as we see fit. My interest in all this though has more to to with one of my God given Constitutional rights, than anything else, I have never done drugs and I quit drinking 12 years ago, cold turkey all together. I take that back, I have an occasional cigar so i guess that would be considered a drug, but I limit myself to one a week on Sunday afternoons unless I am celebrating something special. I will let you figure out what Constitutional right I am worried about preserving:)MarshFox on November 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM

We agree. Anything the government involves itself with lowers efficiency and raises the costs to the people in more ways than just money.
Congrats on the 12 years sober! hats off to you! I stopped using drugs about 20 years ago…I do like a couple beers or a glass of wine tho.. and a good single malt is not beyond me..especially around this time of year..I live in the cold north and the days are short..time to cook and relax and pursue a hobby and bother people on the internet!

And it is, to some extent, theoretical. What is not is the cash that growers keep buried for their “legal defense fund”.

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2012 at 6:21 PM

So what? Excess money is excess money to be used on whatever necessity arises. Money is fungible.
To be accurate, that money would have to be buried in 2 piles. One for the drug dealers fun and expenses and another separate one specifically a “legal defense fund”.

I don’t buy it. When you exploit whatever the market will bare and cash piles up at the rate of about 5 thousand dollars a pound bag..you just have cash on hand. Economics 101 most likely has little to do with the process or mindset.

Do you think that prohibition of alcohol was a good idea? Do you think the repeal of prohibition was a good idea? Do you agree that alcoholism is worse that being a pothead?

steel guy on November 30, 2012 at 8:06 PM

It was an idea which apparently made sense at the time.
Repeal was an idea which made sense at the time.

I see little difference between an alcoholic and a drug addict.

Thats said, it seems drug addicts actually have a rooting section going for them.
I don’t see anyone trying to sell “Hey!..Leave the alcoholics alone!..It’s their business if they want to fall over in their own piss..stop trying to make them feel bad!”

So what? Excess money is excess money to be used on whatever necessity arises. Money is fungible.
To be accurate, that money would have to be buried in 2 piles. One for the drug dealers fun and expenses and another separate one specifically a “legal defense fund”.

I don’t buy it. When you exploit whatever the market will bare and cash piles up at the rate of about 5 thousand dollars a pound bag..you just have cash on hand. Economics 101 most likely has little to do with the process or mindset.

Mimzey on November 30, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Then you lack even the most basic understanding of economics. Not that I’m surprised.

Either one of two possibilities exist to explain the high prices being paid for cannabis in medical states. Either:

1) The risk of being busted by the feds exists. In which case, everyone who would like to be paid black market profits for cannabis and would grow it in order to reap those profits, is prevented from doing so by fear of being busted by the feds.

Or;

2) The risk of being busted by the feds does not exist. In which case everyone who would like to make black market profits enters the cannabis market. At which point supply swells to the point where people are so desperate to move their inventory that they lower their, to the point where they willing to sell their inventory for normal economic profits.

At which point the black market ceases to exist.

Except that first example is what is really happening.

Despite your skepticism clearly based on nothing more than blind ignorance.

It never ceases to amaze me the economic illiteracy demonstrated by some of us who claim to be “conservative”.

Am I old fashioned to believe that being under the influence of drugs is not an optimal behavior? I think we should encourage optimal behavior always. Enabling less than optimal get a lot of less than optimal exceptionalism.

Slavery was a taking of rights. The Emancipation Proclamation did not grant rights, but recognized rights. Please read the enumerated rights in the Constitution carefully. You’ll notice not a single one is granted, but worded as to indicate said rights will not be taken. Man can not grant liberty, but only take it. And the Founders understood this quite well.

You are playing a game of semantics. You can say whatever you want, but the facts were that black people didn’t share the same freedoms as white people. They were treated as less than human. What difference does it even make to say that all rights are granted by god if they can be so easily taken away by man? Did the founders somehow forget this when the legalized slavery? The emancipation proclamation did indeed grant blacks their rights. Otherwise, why was it even necessary?

What’s next, a poll on legalizing murder if you don’t like someone? They call this all evolution–this business of confusing right and wrong and deciding what is right by asking polls or getting aq lot of folks to agree with you.

Just another morally confused cultural disease that will take its toll on so many innocent people before it’s over.

They were treated as less than human. What difference does it even make to say that all rights are granted by god if they can be so easily taken away by man? Did the founders somehow forget this when the legalized slavery? The emancipation proclamation did indeed grant blacks their rights. Otherwise, why was it even necessary?

Am I old fashioned to believe that being under the influence of drugs is not an optimal behavior? I think we should encourage optimal behavior always. Enabling less than optimal get a lot of less than optimal exceptionalism.

vicar7 on December 1, 2012 at 7:01 AM

Is sanctioning or putting someone in jail for a plant either moral or optimum behavior? Arresting someone for a crime with no victim?

Banning of Trans fats? Junk food? Banning of Alcohol? Being drunk or buzzed is not optimum behavior. Having 16 ounces of soda is more optimal for the body than 24 ounces so I guess we should make restaurants cut down on their servings, or ban sugary drinks altogether.

Is sanctioning or putting someone in jail for a plant either moral or optimum behavior? Arresting someone for a crime with no victim?

Banning of Trans fats? Junk food? Banning of Alcohol? Being drunk or buzzed is not optimum behavior. Having 16 ounces of soda is more optimal for the body than 24 ounces so I guess we should make restaurants cut down on their servings, or ban sugary drinks altogether.

LevStrauss on December 1, 2012 at 11:54 AM

That was decided by the people of the states.
If you disagree with the concept of Sates Rights, then petition to have them changed.

No. Thats is my idea of the criminal mind. What is yours..that the motivation of opportunistic crime is based in altruism?

Your claim that is based in economic business principles is a weak argument imo. The only connection is that it involves money.

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Ahhh. I see. So, by the passing of prohibition laws, you think that places the cannabis trade outside of the laws of economics. That somehow supply and demand cease to apply because of criminal laws that you advocate.

Got it.

As I said, economic illiteracy is a sad thing to behold amongst conservatives…

That was decided by the people of the states.
If you disagree with the concept of Sates Rights, then petition to have them changed.

The analogy to the food Nazis is an apples to oranges one.

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Annnnnndddd… you’re retarded.

Colorado and Washington legalized cannabis this last election. So by your states’ rights argument, states that choose to legalize cannabis should be able to do so without sanction by the US Government, and their citizens should be allowed to obey state law without molestation from Washington.

I think conservatives might be more open-minded on this subject if they thought libertarians were being objective and consistent on this. While I have not investigated this subject deeply, from the little bit that I have done, it appears that libertarians in gerneral have an emotional investment in this issue because conservatives don’t necessarily agree with them. If libertarians are so concerned with goverment encroachment of their liberties, why don’t they make such a big fuss about similar things where conservatives agree with them? For example, I just came back from the dairy farm and I live in only one of 19 states that allows you to buy raw milk, and that is under constant threat. It really helps with my immune system and starting in a couple of weeks, the farmer is ceasing milking for the winter and I will have to drive 45 minutes just to buy my milk. Where is the endless interenet forums and Hot Air posts about the milk ban? Can anyone honestly argue that milk is a bigger threat to society than mind altering drugs?

Libertarians have always been advocates for raw milk; it probably hasn’t been talked about on HotAir only because the subject of raw milk has not really come up. I don’t think you’d find a single Libertarian who is a proponent of federal restrictions on raw milk.

It was one of the questions Ron Paul asked in in his farewell speech…”Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?”

There is also a great documentary about raw milk and the war on small farms called Farmageddon…you should watch it when you get the time…the link is below:

…Also, you will never find the endless internet forums on HotAir regarding raw milk because this is not a libertarian website; it’s an establishment Republican website. There are a few Libertarians who comment here, but it’s mostly populated by NeoCon’s.

If you’re looking for endless forums on raw milk you will need to visit a Libertarian website like DailyPaul.com …Here are some of the post’s that come up when you search the term “raw milk” on DailyPaul.com:

Am I old fashioned to believe that being under the influence of drugs is not an optimal behavior? I think we should encourage optimal behavior always.

vicar7 on December 1, 2012 at 7:01 AM

Unfortunately, no vicar, you are not “old fashioned” with this line of thinking. In fact, I can’t think of a better illustration of the statist mindset than your comment. “I don’t like/understand this behavior/outcome so the government should ban it.” This slippery slope,nanny mentality has justified outrageous government overreach for years– from Bloomberg’s Nutritionist-in-Chief lunacy, to Rick Santorum’s ‘lets force taxpayers to pay a bureaucrat to teach our kids about abstinence because I don’t like teen pregnancy.”

What’s next, a poll on legalizing murder if you don’t like someone? They call this all evolution–this business of confusing right and wrong and deciding what is right by asking polls or getting aq lot of folks to agree with you.

Don L on December 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Congratulations on devising the most clumsy, heavy-handed analogy I’ve seen in quite some time.

The analogy to the food Nazis is an apples to oranges one.

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 1:15 PM

It’s actually perfect. The mentality/justification for banning either behavior is identical.

I believe the reason libertarians get so vocal on this topic is because it’s an issue that conservatives ought to be in total agreement with them on. It’s this outrageous grasping at straws reaction we’re seeing from ‘conservatives’ here on this very thread that bugs the hell out of libertarians.

Ahhh. I see. So, by the passing of prohibition laws, you think that places the cannabis trade outside of the laws of economics. That somehow supply and demand cease to apply because of criminal laws that you advocate.

Got it.

As I said, economic illiteracy is a sad thing to behold amongst conservatives…

JohnGalt23 on December 1, 2012 at 1:49 PM

You will have to translate that.
It’s almost like you’re purposely trying to not understand my position.

Hint:
Original point made in response to the claim that the high cost of pot is a result of the high cost of smuggling..money put aside for lost shipments..the passing of the product thru many hands,etc, and legal pot would take the money incentive and associated violence out of the equation.
I pointed out that this is bullshet based on the price of “legal” pot.

What point you’re trying to make by arguing whether criminal’s adhere to “economics 101″..is a non sequitur, and doesn’t address or challenge my observation imo.

Colorado and Washington legalized cannabis this last election. So by your states’ rights argument, states that choose to legalize cannabis should be able to do so without sanction by the US Government, and their citizens should be allowed to obey state law without molestation from Washington.

Is that your position?

JohnGalt23 on December 1, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Yes. I made that point in the response to the same question you asked last night.
So I take it, that is a “retarded” position to have.
Whats your position?

Where is the endless interenet forums and Hot Air posts about the milk ban? Can anyone honestly argue that milk is a bigger threat to society than mind altering drugs?

NeverLiberal on December 1, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Because you can’t get high on milk.

Because most libertarians are mostly liberals who’s main rallying point is personal pleasure..legal drugs and hors are something to harp on and crusade over….other similar things….not so much. I think you’re observation of the passive hypocrisy of these people is right on.

It’s actually perfect. The mentality/justification for banning either behavior is identical.

I believe the reason libertarians get so vocal on this topic is because it’s an issue that conservatives ought to be in total agreement with them on. It’s this outrageous grasping at straws reaction we’re seeing from ‘conservatives’ here on this very thread that bugs the hell out of libertarians.

bocat on December 1, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I don’t think so.
On the one hand you had the people go thru the legal channele to get a position up for voting on in order to ban drugs..you know..via the Constitution….and on the other hand you have a governor..school officials or a FLOTUS just deeming it to be the will of the people.

Unfortunately, no vicar, you are not “old fashioned” with this line of thinking. In fact, I can’t think of a better illustration of the statist mindset than your comment. “I don’t like/understand this behavior/outcome so the government should ban it.”

Thats an odd way to put things together imo.
When put up to the Constitution, your logical fallacy of “Appeal To Popularity” is even more weak than when the same fallacy is applied to which hamburger is the better hamburger based on sales.

One observation I have is that all this debate about weather or not it ought to be legalized is largely becoming moot, at least where I live. It is widely available to anyone who wants to buy it….

steel guy on November 30, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Almost the same here. The police here don’t go after pot users/sellers. But if you are caught fighting/stealing/disorderly… and you are in possession then it will get added to the charges.

Like some others here, I’d say let a state legalize it as long as employers can test for it (as many times as they want) and refuse to hire based on the test results. Though, a problem might be when the Cannabis lobby gets big enough that they seek to change hire/firing laws — rights might be granted by God but what you can and can’t do is often granted by a big lobby.

Original point made in response to the claim that the high cost of pot is a result of the high cost of smuggling..money put aside for lost shipments..the passing of the product thru many hands,etc, and legal pot would take the money incentive and associated violence out of the equation.
I pointed out that this is bullshet based on the price of “legal” pot.

What point you’re trying to make by arguing whether criminal’s adhere to “economics 101″..is a non sequitur, and doesn’t address or challenge my observation imo.

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 4:15 PM

First of all, yes, you are ever more so proving yourself to be ignorant.

The reason for relatively high prices of what you (foolishly) call “legal pot” is not because of high costs associated with dodging law enforcement. The reason the cost is so high is that supply of “legal pot” (which, I’ll remind you again is a sign of your ignorance on this matter) is, in fact, severely restricted, by laws enforced by the US Government.

Absent those laws, everyone and his brother, including Altria Corp and RJR Corp, would be in the business of manufacturing and distributing cannabis products. There would be so many suppliers that the market price would be driven down.

With those laws in place, the supply of cannabis is so restricted that prices rise to black market levels. This reflects the “risk premium” in the market… that effect when only a small amount of potential suppliers are willing to enter the market due to the risk, and are thus paid a premium for assuming that risk. And the costs that you mentioned (most notably, legal defense funds) are merely representations of how producers rationally maximize profit by minimizing that risk.

But the idea that there is such thing as “legal pot”, or that producers in stats where local criminal law has been removed are not receiving a risk premium, in fact, retarded.

Which leads me to believe I’m wasting my time explaining it to you. But hopefully there is someone out there reading this that is capable of understanding basic economics who might be enlightened.

Though, a problem might be when the Cannabis lobby gets big enough that they seek to change hire/firing laws — rights might be granted by God but what you can and can’t do is often granted by a big lobby.

BoxHead1 on December 1, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Why should that be a problem. The cannabis industry should have the same opportunity to petition their government as any other industry.

Why should that be a problem. The cannabis industry should have the same opportunity to petition their government as any other industry.

JohnGalt23 on December 1, 2012 at 6:54 PM

If it’s legal. A prescient state might decide that legalizing pot is not a good idea based on the dangers of a thriving cannabis industry and it’s accompanying lobby. Many states keep gambling limited for that very reason.

It’s funny. I was reading the posts and turning over the arguments in my head[] and thinking about a country with no MJ laws… But if Ocare ends up being the wreck that some suspect and if servicing the 16tril debt becomes untenable then … it doesn’t matter.

The reason for relatively high prices of what you (foolishly) call “legal pot” is not because of high costs associated with dodging law enforcement. The reason the cost is so high is that supply of “legal pot” (which, I’ll remind you again is a sign of your ignorance on this matter) is, in fact, severely restricted, by laws enforced by the US Government.

JohnGalt23 on December 1, 2012 at 6:53 PM

My how you flatter yourself.

Listen..you seem to believe your own bullshet.
You made a claim.
The claim is this:

The reason the cost is so high is that supply of “legal pot” (which, I’ll remind you again is a sign of your ignorance on this matter) is, in fact, severely restricted, by laws enforced by the US Government.

What are you basing that claim on?
Where are there such shortages of legal pot?…and yes..it is either legal or the medical marijuana laws are a farce.

Can you answer that simple question..what is your information source for that claim?

I think you understand what his point was. If you can’t buy it, it’s gunna be pretty difficult to drink it; unless you have a cow or somebody you know has a cow and is willing to give you free milk. Everybody knows the risk involved in drinking raw milk as far as bacteria is concerned…does that give the federal government the right to ban its sale and if so then where do they get that authority from? Should they ban everything that is deemed potentially dangerous. Some people see soda as harmful, I guess you agree with Bloomberg? Are poeple free to make bad decisions? If not, then are we really free?

It is a states right issue…whether a Libertarian would be for or against it at the local/state lever is irrelevant. I hope you can at least agree that the feds have no authority in actually regulating it.

I don’t think so.
On the one hand you had the people go thru the legal channele to get a position up for voting on in order to ban drugs..you know..via the Constitution….and on the other hand you have a governor..school officials or a FLOTUS just deeming it to be the will of the people.

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM

The procedure through which the respective bans (marijuana and junk food) were implemented is different, the statist mentality of “there ought to be a law against things I don’t like” or “I think behavior X harms society in some marginal way so let’s limit, ban it, or create some program to prevent it” is exactly the same. The analogy stands.

Whether it’s a fellow citizen smoking pot, texting while driving, eating trans fat, having extramarital sex, smoking in a bar, etc etc etc, it is the exact same big government mentality that leads people to legislate– i.e. suffocate individual freedom– where no legislation is necessary. Marijuana and drug laws are especially significant issues because citizens are actually imprisoned and law enforcement wastes so much taxpayer time and money dealing with this nonsense.

Piss and moan all you want about your distaste for drug users, just don’t pretend to be a small-government conservative while demanding the power of the state be used to act as your own personal “Preferred Lifestyles Enforcer”

The procedure through which the respective bans (marijuana and junk food) were implemented is different, the statist mentality of “there ought to be a law against things I don’t like” or “I think behavior X harms society in some marginal way so let’s limit, ban it, or create some program to prevent it” is exactly the same. The analogy stands.

Thats just the way you make it out to be.
The analogy is weak at best.
Certainly you can tell the difference between the right of people to govern themselves in a social structure and a select few..and I mean few mandating the diet choices on the whole.

The Constitutional right for people to make laws is a fact. Not everyone will agree with those laws. That is also a fact.

How is what you seem to want to believe would be a good way of organizing a society any different than the individual whims of an anarchists dream?

Because most libertarians are mostly liberals who’s main rallying point is personal pleasure..legal drugs and hors are something to harp on and crusade over….other similar things….not so much. I think you’re observation of the passive hypocrisy of these people is right on.

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Libertarians are liberals? I’m gonna have to disagree with you here. Libertarians are the opposite of liberals in todays understanding of the term. However in the classic meaning of the term “liberal” which men like Thomas Jefferson subscribed to I would agree. Libertarians like Jefferson believe in limited government. “That government which governs least governs best”, “If it niether picks my pocket nor breaks my bone what difference is it to me?”
People will indulge in vises, always have always will and no laws will stop them. Vices by definition are not good for you. Of all the vices I’ve had personal experience with, pot has been the least harmful to me.
I think had I never indulged in this habbit perhaps I would have had more ambition in my career. I’m not sure that my life would have been any happier. I’m certain that my family life could not be better than what it is. Overall I have few regrets.

Libertarians are liberals? I’m gonna have to disagree with you here. Libertarians are the opposite of liberals in todays understanding of the term. However in the classic meaning of the term “liberal” which men like Thomas Jefferson subscribed to I would agree. Libertarians like Jefferson believe in limited government. “That government which governs least governs best”, “If it niether picks my pocket nor breaks my bone what difference is it to me?”
People will indulge in vises, always have always will and no laws will stop them. Vices by definition are not good for you. Of all the vices I’ve had personal experience with, pot has been the least harmful to me.
I think had I never indulged in this habbit perhaps I would have had more ambition in my career. I’m not sure that my life would have been any happier. I’m certain that my family life could not be better than what it is. Overall I have few regrets.

steel guy on December 2, 2012 at 9:16 AM

I can see how you may think that, but I never claimed that. I stated my opinion that many of them are mostly like liberals.

The similarities I see in the modern mutation of “progressive liberals” is a similarity in the concept of wanting to determine the decisions of ones own life and minimizing government intrusion. This concept is classic liberalism.

The mutants don’t think that well. They transfer the idea of personal responsibility into little or no responsibility and somehow think they are the same thing. They want the freedoms but they want someone else to pay for it.
That said, there are different kinds of libertarians. The ones I referred to are the ones who are closer to “polite anarchists”. They may not want to crap on someones car…they just don’t really care if you do..nobody’s business but the person doin’ the crapin’.

I actually agree with a lot of Libertarian positions. One of them is governing via the Constitution and States Rights to make and enforce laws whether they support your positions or not.

the fact that weed is harmless and less dangerous than the legal drugs – alcohol and nicotine – is a useless argument though. No matter how flawlessly you present those facts, the next guy will say “drugs!” and half the population will run toward prohibition. Ironic considering half the population now feeds kids designer drugs like Ritalin and Adderal that are twice the potency of cocaine.

the fact that weed is harmless and less dangerous than the legal drugs – alcohol and nicotine – is a useless argument though. No matter how flawlessly you present those facts, the next guy will say “drugs!” and half the population will run toward prohibition. Ironic considering half the population now feeds kids designer drugs like Ritalin and Adderal that are twice the potency of cocaine.

Slade73 on December 2, 2012 at 12:38 PM

I’m guessing that for some reason, you and J the L are missing my point. It may be due to focus bias.
My main point is that the people of a state have the right, under the concept of states rights, to make the laws that they see fit for their state. Some will agree with those laws and some won’t. Regardless of what side one chooses to be on, those laws are a valid expression of the governance by “the people”.

Projection?
There is no game, only objective facts. People have the right to make laws. Like those or not..they are a valid expression of governing via the “will of the people”.
Do you agree with this idea? If not, why not?

The reason the cost is so high is that supply of “legal pot” (which, I’ll remind you again is a sign of your ignorance on this matter) is, in fact, severely restricted, by laws enforced by the US Government.

What are you basing that claim on?
Where are there such shortages of legal pot?…and yes..it is either legal or the medical marijuana laws are a farce.

Can you answer that simple question..what is your information source for that claim?

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Once again, the economic illiteracy amongst those who claim the mantle of “conservative” never ceases to shock.

Are you really asking me for a source, to prove to you that criminal penalties, prosecuted by the US Government in places like California that have legalized medicinal use of marijuana… criminal penalties, that I remind you, carry mandatory minimum sentences measured out in scores of months of incarceration… prevents cannabis producers from entering the market?

Do you want proof that the threat of such sentences prevents producers from entering the market? Here I am. Were I, as a resident of CA, able to grow and sell cannabis without the threat of prosecution by the US Government, for the current market prices of $1500-2500 per pound, I’d do it in a heartbeat. The only thing preventing me from doing so is that threat of prosecuting by the US Government. And the same could be said of every farmer in CA. At $2000/lb, they’d be fools to grow anything else.

Do you want proof that as producers are restricted from entering the market, the market price rises? Here you go The appropriate passage:

Factors affecting supply…

Number of suppliers: The market supply curve is the horizontal summation of the individual supply curves. As more firms enter the industry the market supply curve will shift out driving down prices.

You were saying?…

As far as medical cannabis laws being a farce, only if you have no understanding of a federal system of government. States are supposed to have the authority to decide these matters. You have as much as admitted as such. Well, the states have decided, and yet the US Government is still involved in these matters, with your apparent support. It’s not the state laws that are a farce. It is the extra-constitutional power that the US Government has claimed for itself to prohibit these substances that is, in fact a farce.

So, congratulations. You have now not only proven yourself to be an economic illiterate, but also a political illiterate.

Number of suppliers: The market supply curve is the horizontal summation of the individual supply curves. As more firms enter the industry the market supply curve will shift out driving down prices.

You were saying?…

As far as medical cannabis laws being a farce, only if you have no understanding of a federal system of government. States are supposed to have the authority to decide these matters. You have as much as admitted as such. Well, the states have decided, and yet the US Government is still involved in these matters, with your apparent support. It’s not the state laws that are a farce. It is the extra-constitutional power that the US Government has claimed for itself to prohibit these substances that is, in fact a farce.

So, congratulations. You have now not only proven yourself to be an economic illiterate, but also a political illiterate.

That’s a twofer…

JohnGalt23 on December 2, 2012 at 2:56 PM

What the hell are you going on about?
You seem to obsessed with some position you feel the need to convince yourself about.

No seriously…what the hell are you talking about? You seem to be blithering on about general market forces that have nothing to do with the price of tea in China.
….and then go on to crime stats?..What is that all about?
The only thing I asked for a basis in is the claim of drastic shortages of available medical marijuana….still waiting.

Seriously..why so emotionally invested in this one subject?
Your numbers of price per pound is bullshit…unless you are claiming that a person can enter a medical marijuana dispensary and walk out with a pound of pot for 1500.
Is this what you are claiming?

Its almost like you’re not even reading my posts in context with anything other than your “Crusader For Pot” eyes.
Seriously..what IS it you’re trying to prove?..that pot is harmless..that pot laws are unconstitutional..that there is a pot shortage driving prices up..that legal medical pot is in fact illegal?..that drug dealer have escrow accounts for legal fees and THATS why the price is what it is regardless of legal status?…what?
You’re all over the place with your thought processes. Do you personally smoke pot?..cuz thats one of the “harmless” byproducts of using it, don’tcha know?

Your numbers of price per pound is bullshit…unless you are claiming that a person can enter a medical marijuana dispensary and walk out with a pound of pot for 1500.

Mimzey on December 2, 2012 at 4:21 PM

No. Because regulation of dispensaries prevent them from selling customers more than an ounce. Which, if you had any clue about what you were talking about, I wouldn’t have to explain to you.

$1500-2500 is the pound price for top-quality pot from growers. That’s what dispensaries pay for it. Or did you think dispensaries bought their pot from somewhere else?

Or would you like evidence of that also?

Seriously..what IS it you’re trying to prove?

that pot is harmless

No…, I’ve stated that cannabis is not harmless.

that pot laws are unconstitutional

That laws passed by Congress to be enforced by the US government are unconstitutional. If you had any idea about federalism, you would know the difference between the those two statements.

that there is a pot shortage driving prices up

No. That laws passed by the US government implementing criminal sanctions for engaging in the cannabis trade drive legitimate producers from the marketplace, which drives prices to black market levels, which cause all types of problems for society.

that legal medical pot is in fact illegal?

No. That the US Government, in contravention to the US Constitution, is implementing criminal sanctions against the cannabis trade. A trade, by the way, which individual states, as is their proper role, have tried to legitimize.

that drug dealer have escrow accounts for legal fees and THATS why the price is what it is regardless of legal status?

No. That (escrow accounts??? – you really aren’t all that sharp, are you?) the price of cannabis is almost entirely determined by its prohibition by the US government. A prohibition that you have spoken out of both sides of your mouth of.

…what?

What am I trying to prove.

I’m trying to prove that know-nothing blowholes like yourself have opinions on matters of policy, economics, and politics that they really have no business holding. Opinions that drive policies that have eroded our civil liberties, destabilized nation-states in this hemisphere, and corrupted our law enforcement and foreign affairs. I’m trying to prove that the War on Drugs is a failure of monumental proportions that conservatives should be dying to be rid of, if for no other reason than conservatives’ requirement that if we tax people to pay for a program, the very minimum that program would be able to claim is success in its stated goals. And I’m trying to prove that the only way conservatives can defend their support for the War on Drugs is to either feign or actually achieve a level of ignorance worthy only of liberals.

The greatest harm done by the present condition is the mass alienation of young people from American institutions. People who otherwise have no propensity to become criminals watch their friends’ lose rights and freedom over a relatively innocuous act and recoil with hostility at the American system of justice. The very act of procurement results in forced contact and indoctrination with a deliberately criminal subculture which then becomes glorified. The harm to society is deeply ingrained and penetrates generations.

The video was misleading and intellectually dishonest. The opinions of one MD with an obvious conflict of interest — she earns her living ‘treating’ marijuana use — are hardly persuasive. Why is there no mention of the obvious carnage caused by alcohol use, yet alcohol is legal? Are we supposed to believe that those tender “myelinating” young brains are unaffected by other drugs? Are their no other drugs that are lipophilic”? Pretty thin gruel.

The real question is whether marijuana is so harmful, so lethal, so toxic, or so dangerous that it provides a compelling reason to continue to prosecute those who merely possess it. The answer is no. We ought not to promote its use, but like Prohibition it is time to end the war on ourselves.

You’re incredible. You’re having a completely different debate. The points you seem to harp on are not points that I’ve made.
I ask one (1) question:

Why are legal medical marijuana prices higher than street prices if the claim made by medical pot activists is that the expenses of smuggling, lost shipments due to interdiction, the movement to different distribution points, deadbeat customers etc, does not exist for the legal grower. And you answer with ‘oppressed hippie’ boilerplate catechisms and mellow anarchist talking points.
You really do seem to hold this pot thing to a high degree of personal emotionalism that seems disproportionate to the issue. O.K…I get it..you like drugs..good for you. Let your freak flag fly and all that, but try to make more rational arguments to further your cause. The “I get my info from High Times magazine” and NORMAL propaganda is threadbare after 40 years or so.
Just sayin’.

The video was misleading and intellectually dishonest. The opinions of one MD with an obvious conflict of interest — she earns her living ‘treating’ marijuana use — are hardly persuasive. Why is there no mention of the obvious carnage caused by alcohol use, yet alcohol is legal? Are we supposed to believe that those tender “myelinating” young brains are unaffected by other drugs? Are their no other drugs that are lipophilic”? Pretty thin gruel.

The real question is whether marijuana is so harmful, so lethal, so toxic, or so dangerous that it provides a compelling reason to continue to prosecute those who merely possess it. The answer is no. We ought not to promote its use, but like Prohibition it is time to end the war on ourselves.

DaMav on December 2, 2012 at 8:44 PM

That is mostly a specious argument made up of strawmen.

Obvious conflict of interest?
Problems from excess alcohol is not part of the topic.
You find it hard to believe that different drug act differently on the body?
“The real question is_____”
No it is not the real question.

This is how an honest debate works.
If you find fault in the research data and analysis that is being presented and the conclusions based on that science, state specifically where the data is wrong or where you find the scientific method to be flawed..offer your alternative hypothesis and provide your research data/ analysis and conclusions for peer review. If you have none, the you have nothing but opinion and feelings.

The Crowder video strikes at the smoke filled lungs* of stupid liberals.
Read their foolish arguments on the YT website.
There isn’t one rational thought between their bong hits.
And it’s filled with profanity and unhinged name calling.

I’ve always said let people do as they please with their own bodies. When their misguided actions spill over into the lives of others and affect the innocent, apply the law and restrict their rights.

* Only an addle brained liberal would argue for smoking after doing everything to restrict “big tobacco” & CO2.

Just like alcohol, do it home or have a straight person drive that doesn’t do the drugs, including alcohol. All drugs are dangerous and there has been many videos showing how people’s judgement is impaired when they use them. Some times this leads to hard drugs and I’ve lost many friends that way.